Posted on 06/14/2002 7:52:48 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
The problem with this question is that if there is an answer, whatever you are talking about, it is not choice. If what you are talking about is choice, there cannot be an answer to that question. The question is equally applicable or unapplicable, as I hold, to all men, including Adam, and all angels, even God. If there is a reason (cause) for any action, it is not chosen action.
Now if you want to make choice have some other meaning, that is fine. It will not be what anybody else means by choice, however.
By the way, I mostly agree with everything else you wrote, and you will be interested to know I actually had your illustration about the door to salvation in mind this morning before I wrote my last post.
(I'm going to respond more fully. Your post deserves a little more.)
Hank
Don't need to. We have the translation, and it's all the evidence we need.
Second translation for over a hundred pages of the BoM, right? Was not the original of the first portion of Smith's translation lost? If found would the original translation and re-translation be identical?
"As far as faith and repentance as works, the question again is 'who is the author of the work?'" since I have been recently castigated for suggestiing anyone says faith and repentance are works. Here is Matchett-PI's comment:
"Calvinists have asserted that faith and repentance are works."
Prove it. Quote them. Name, date, reply # and thread reference.
Excuse the digression:
Now, the beginning of you argument takes the position that faith and repentance are works, and that was the original question. Can faith and repentance be considered work. At the risk of being required to, "prove it," by someone, Calvinists hold that faith and repentance are impossible except by the grace of God, or if you like, except when "authored" by God. Since my whole example was about those who are actually saved, for the Calvinist, there cannot be any question about the authorship of the faith and repentance.
That was my exact point. If you are a Calvinist, and someone repents and trust in the finished work of Christ for salvation and demonstrates that conversion with the fruits of the Spirit, you have no uncertainty about the "authorship" of the faith and repentance.
Regarding the same individual, a non-Calvinist (I am not an Arminian, but am stronly non-Calvinist) also has no doubt about the "authorship" of the faith and repentance, but do not try to cover up the fact that the individual himself must actually repent and believe. While Calvinists do not intend it, and therefore do not notice it, what they say actually sounds likes (and really implies) that repentance and faith are something "tacked onto" a person, and not really done by the person themselves, that is, the person themselves does not really repent and believe.
Now I've already answered the part about the "reason" for choice, which is very important. The nature of volition is greatly misunderstood, not only by religionists, but by philosophers and psychologists as well. Certainly most teaching about it is greatly confused.
Now I must address this idea that makes faith, repentance, and any other mental or psychological "behavior" work.
You said, "Therefore, that choice if not by God must be by man, and thus a work."
Repentance is a choice. Now the Bible makes it clear that without repentance, one cannot be saved. But if God makes the choice, God has repented, so this cannot be what that means. The man himself must repent. God cannot repent for him. God can empower him to repent, he can work in him "both to will and to do" it, but He cannot do it for him, else the man would not have himslef repented.
The smae applies to faith. God cannot believe for a man, he must believe himself. It is certainly God who gives him that gift, but having been given it, it is really his.
The solution is that repentance and faith cannot be construed as work in the Biblical sense (or any sense, as far sas I know). Fist of all, faith and repentance are intellectual or mental proccesses, not physical acts. We speak of such things as thinking, and decision making as acts, but these are only metphorical expressions. We also speak of people being in "deep thought" but know thought is not measured in inches of depth, and is not something you can get in and out of. The use of the word "act" with regard to any mental or intellectual process, such as choosing, is purely a figure of speech.
The Bible clearly distinguishes between "works" which are always overt physical actions, and faith, choice, and the heart, etc. which are all mental or intellectual processes. Never is a mental or intellectual process called a work in the Bible. Works are always things which people do as "payment" or as a means to "earn" either God's blessing or forgiveness.
Faith and repentance are the exact opposite of all that is represented as "works", or "good works," or "works of the law," in the Bible. Repentance is the intentional giving up of (quitting, if you like) of one's own works and ways, and surrendering in faith to the will of God, resting only on Christ's finished work. Works are always something one does they think is good, repentance is giving up such dead works; works is giving something to God, faith is receiving grace from God, works is doing something for God, salvation is God doing something in us.
Hank
Oh, but it does. The fact you do not think it matters is significant.
2 Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Hank
What I find significant is the fact that no Christian worth his salt here seems to want to comment on the author's assertion that Christian doctrines were lost.
Nobody's going to touch that with a ten-foot pole.
When you come up with the missing 113 pages, you be sure and let us know one way or the other.
Let me ask it another way... If the original 113 pages are not identical to the retranslated 113 pages would not Joseph Smith and the LDS faith be discredited?
We accept the Bible as the infallible word of God..the other stuff is interesting but it is not for doctrine.
God chose the books that would be in the Bible. Theses books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost..they were and are preserved by God ..
Someone tells you I saw golden plates and here is what was on them..no proof at all..and you accept to allow your eternity to hang on that
That is a fine thread..
It would depend on how far apart the differences were, wouldn't it?
But since you don't have the 113 missing pages of the original manuscript that was lost by Martin Harris, all you've got is speculation.
In doing a quick google search I was reminded that Joseph after Harris lost the first 116 pages was conveniently directed by god to translate a shorter account.
Joseph Smith was forbidden by the Lord to retranslate that part of the record previously translated because those who had stolen the manuscript planned to publish it in an altered form to discredit his ability to translate accurately (D&C 10:9-13). Instead, he was to translate the Small Plates of Nephi (1 Nephi-Omni) down to that which he had translated (D&C 10:41). Those plates covered approximately the same period as had the lost manuscript, or four centuries from Lehi to Benjamin. Mormon had been so impressed with the choice prophecies and sayings contained in the small plates that he had included them with his own abridgment of Nephite writings when told to by the Spirit for "a wise purpose" known only to the Lord (W of M 1:7).
Source (a LDS site): http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bom/116_eom.htm
=====
Joseph's god was sure shrewd to avoid the trap of people who might think Joseph was yankin' their crank!
And how, as a Christian, do you answer that question?
We accept the Bible as the infallible word of God..
Why? ... the other stuff is interesting but it is not for doctrine.
But the author at the top of this thread seems to think that it's extremely important that you guys start looking at that stuff in order to bring back doctrines that he claims were lost. That's no Mormon writing those words at the top of this thread, that's one of your own.
God chose the books that would be in the Bible.
No, people chose the books that would be in the Bible. My understanding is that there were some big names that didn't want to see the Revelation of John canonized. Your hope is that the people doing the choosing were operating under the influence of the Holy Ghost at the time.
These books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost..
How do you know this? You ask me for proof that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Where's your proof that these books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?
... they were and are preserved by God ..
Matthew refers to Jesus as a Nazarene, and cites this fact as a fulfillment of prophecy. Your problem is to find me the Old Testament prophecy that Matthew refers to.
Something (a prophecy) sure seems to have not been preserved by God along the way.
Someone tells you I saw golden plates and here is what was on them..no proof at all..and you accept to allow your eternity to hang on that
You read the translation, and you pray about it, and you ponder it, and you ask yourself, "Is this reasonable?", and then, if you believe that God can answer a request for wisdom (and James 1:5 says He can), you see if that prayer doesn't get answered.
That is a fine thread..
Mighty fine, indeed.
Knew I should have fact-checked that number before I typed it in. 113, 116, so sue me.
The post clarifies the intrigue surrounding the section lost by that rascal Harris. God should have known better than let Joseph let Martin borrow it.
So you think that only the mormons get burning breasts? *grin*
Cubic no one lost the original writings of the Bible because they were protected by God. Jesus should know what is inspired writings.He quoted every book in the Protestant OT canon.
I will say to you what I often say to the Arminians. You have a weak god..he could not protect his word..he could not repeat the lost material without error to Joseph (did he forget what he had said)
I find it interesting you trust the works of a oft mistaken prophet...and build your faith on that..and you question the ability of God to guide a council of men...
He did. Martin was repeatedly told "no". But, as God is wont to do, when people pester Him enough, sometimes He relents in order to teach a lesson.
So? What proof do you offer that these documents contain the word of God?
So you think that only the mormons get burning breasts? *grin*
I'm repeatedly told, by others at this site, that the "burning in the breast" schtick is a perniciously Mormon sign-seeking activity, and that no decent Christian would dare presume to have God answer a prayer in such a way.
Cubic no one lost the original writings of the Bible because they were protected by God.
Then quote me the source, chapter and verse, of Matthew's cited prophecy about the Messiah being a Nazarene.
Jesus should know what is inspired writings.He quoted every book in the Protestant OT canon.
Interesting that the Book of Jude, which you claim is inspired, also quotes from something not found in the Old Testament. What's Jude referencing?
I will say to you what I often say to the Arminians. You have a weak god..he could not protect his word..he could not repeat the lost material without error to Joseph (did he forget what he had said)
God doesn't perform magic tricks by magically restoring lost scriptures or by retranslating or rewording poorly worded or translated sections of scripture when nobody's looking. Of course, we believe that He sends angels to do such things, but you guys don't seem to want to buy into that.
Where's the missing Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9)? The missing Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3)? The missing Epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16)? How about the missing Epistle of Jude (Jude 3)? The missing declaration of belief mentioned by Luke (1:1)?
I find it interesting you trust the works of a oft mistaken prophet...and build your faith on that..and you question the ability of God to guide a council of men...
I question the ability of God to guide a council of apostate men. God, being the good libertarian that He is, doesn't coerce people to do stuff that they're determined to do in ways that are not in accordance with His will.
Most Born again Christians will tell you that they had an intense spiritual experience at the time of their salvation..
Cubic no one lost the original writings of the Bible because they were protected by God.
Then quote me the source, chapter and verse, of Matthew's cited prophecy about the Messiah being a Nazarene.
Cubic ..Jude does speak from tradition ..so? Obviously if the source of his quote was inspired the entire document would have been included..but God had what He wanted known in the bible through Jude. I think it speaks to the accuracy of the word that the original source is not in there..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.